One Piece Wiki talk:Featured Article Polls
February 2013 - Part 1 Discuss February 2013 matters here. 00:55, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Not being allowed to vote for your own nomination is retarded. SeaTerror (talk) 00:59, February 4, 2013 (UTC) 1 vote per person.. therefore everybody would just vote for their own nomination. 01:00, February 4, 2013 (UTC) We have our opinion. Why would we want to change our opinion by voting on someone else? Then we'd rather just not vote at all, which would be worse. Better to just let us vote for ourselves. Not really up for discussion honestly. When you nominate something, you have to vote for other things. 01:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Of course it is up for discussion. You can't just arbitrary make up rules. SeaTerror (talk) 04:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Start a forum. 04:50, February 7, 2013 (UTC) March 2013 - Part 1 Should we have a part 2 in march? If we start the nominations now, we'll have to make sure we tell the person who nominates whoever wins the February poll that they change their vote, since the two will be occurring at the same time. (If that's even a problem) 16:18, March 1, 2013 (UTC) Yeah. The february part 2 poll was supposed to be started much sooner but it seems everyone forgot it was there, so it's running a little late. Can someone update me on how we choose the featured articles? Do we have to vote every week or what? Isn't it better to display them randomly each day? We will still add new ones though, but they will appear randomly, it's far easier that way. A featured article is featured permanently, therefore we vote on it. We should have held off until the vote was over. Not that it matters in this case though. SeaTerror (talk) 17:54, March 1, 2013 (UTC) Tiebreaker discussion If we allow people to vote for their own nomination in a tiebreaker we may break more ties. And I'm not even sure why we have the rule about not voting for your own nomination in the first place. It's not like these featured article polls are that important. Not many people are even gonna vote on them. 19:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC) I agree,people should have the right to vote their own nomination in case of a tiebreaker. 20:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC) I only voted Caribou to force a tie in the first place because the rule was if there was a tie both would get featured. Then Galaxy changed it for no reason at all. So technically we shouldn't even be having this vote and both should have been featured. SeaTerror (talk) 21:07, March 17, 2013 (UTC) How can both get featured? 17:50, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, it seems like we should just do that. These featured articles aren't very important, so why do we even need to waste time on a tiebreaker? If two things get enough votes to tie, just make them both featured, because we all know the loser of the tiebreaker will just be made featured next month. And we should move most of these discussions over to the talk page and date each one's section heading. It's getting hard to keep track of these conversations. 18:06, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Ok,let's do that,it would be easier.And I agree with JSD.It's hard indeed. 18:12, March 19, 2013 (UTC) One featured article. We need tiebreakers. I guess you could start a forum to change the rules. Also, no voting for nominations because that's just dumb. 00:29, March 21, 2013 (UTC) We can vote for our nominations in Admin and Chat mod forums, why not here? 00:40, March 21, 2013 (UTC) Because it usually results in every option having one vote. Mod and Admin elections are different, since we have a vast pool of people voting and being nominated. 00:44, March 21, 2013 (UTC) Calu was the one who made this and she agreed with being able to vote on your own nominations and that a tiebreaker = both get featured. You're the one who made up the new "rules". SeaTerror (talk) 01:01, March 21, 2013 (UTC) There, it's all now in the talk page. And I agree in that we should vote for whatever we want. It's not like everyone who votes have also nominated an article. Yep,there are people that haven't nominated an article so it won't result to a tie. 14:24, March 21, 2013 (UTC) A tie should also mean both are featured like how it was going to be done originally. SeaTerror (talk) 17:23, March 21, 2013 (UTC) Ok,that wouls be even better. 18:09, March 21, 2013 (UTC) March 2013 - Part 2 Just feature Caribou and end the stupid tiebreaker votes. SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Ceasar Clown is featured. 19:25, March 22, 2013 (UTC) I know. Caribou should also be featured because the original rule was to have no tiebreaker vote but feature each one that tied. SeaTerror (talk) 20:12, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Well,that seems even better.Why were the rules changed? 20:17, March 22, 2013 (UTC) For no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 21:27, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Change them back. 21:43, March 22, 2013 (UTC) We can't start doing that in the middle of a poll. We'll start with that from this poll. If there's a tie on this one, we feature both. We were supposed to do it last time. The rule itself was changed mid poll by Galaxy when there was evidence of a tie about to happen. SeaTerror (talk) 23:02, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Never was a rule that ties can happen. If you have a problem, then please start a 2 week poll about the rules. 23:07, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Stop acting like that, Galaxy. If everyone else wants ties to be allow, then allow it. Lets admit it, some of those rules were silly to begin with. Also, you weren't the one to come up with the idea. You changed this poll way too much, favoring to what you want it to be and not what others want. This isn't a monarchy you know. The tie that happened when ST voted should have been allowed, but both of you butt munchers, Galaxy and Sewil, kept reverting it back when it should have been allowed, which also caused a silly edit war. 23:19, March 22, 2013 (UTC) You're the one who said it was a rule. SeaTerror (talk) 00:17, March 24, 2013 (UTC) It still doesn't matter since it's too late. Give it a rest, ST. Also, we've already discussed it in here gal, and people are fine with featuring both articles on a tie. It is not too late since it was already supposed to happen. SeaTerror (talk) 17:37, March 25, 2013 (UTC) No, it was decided during the tie-poll, so obviously it was too late. That AWC was me, I was in a rush (explains my poor grammar) and too lazy to sign in. ANYWAYS, it's never too late. 06:23, March 30, 2013 (UTC) Please input that rule then under the "Rules" headline. It needs to be written down there. Archiving This page is gonna get pretty long and we will have to archive someday.So I suggest archiving every six months in order to keep the page well organized. 11:46, April 28, 2013 (UTC) I'll take that as a yes. 22:24, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm gonna archive when this month's voting period ends. Objections? 07:10, May 21, 2013 (UTC) none Unrelated Articles We should make a rule that unrelated articles are prohibited. We must nominate relevant articles, not Gaimon or Nezumi. 18:30, May 13, 2013 (UTC) No such thing as being unrelated. If it is part of One Piece then it can be nominated. SeaTerror (talk) 18:33, May 13, 2013 (UTC) If the story arc about them was 10 years ago, they are unrelated. 18:35, May 13, 2013 (UTC) I loled. SeaTerror (talk) 18:36, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Can somebody give me a serious reply? 18:39, May 13, 2013 (UTC) You already got your serious reply. You're hilarious if you think old characters from the SAME STORY aren't related. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, May 13, 2013 (UTC) I'm right and you're wrong. Accept it and move on :D 18:47, May 13, 2013 (UTC) I knew you were bad at debating but not that bad. SeaTerror (talk) 18:48, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Look who's talking... 18:50, May 13, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Staw-Hat about the unrelated articles. 03:01, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Too bad they aren't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unrelated SeaTerror (talk) 03:08, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Gaimon appeared in Chapter 620. 03:10, May 14, 2013 (UTC) The latest chapter released was Chapter 708. 06:52, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Unrelated as in not related to the current plot in the story. 08:26, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Don't pay attention to ST, he's trolling. So if somebody can't properly argue with me I will add it as a rule. 08:33, May 14, 2013 (UTC) I think you should add it. 08:43, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Added. 08:56, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Good. 10:34, May 14, 2013 (UTC) You're an idiot. You cannot make up any rules like that. You also obviously don't know what "unrelated" means even after I linked the definition. That's pretty pathetic. SeaTerror (talk) 17:43, May 16, 2013 (UTC) You're pathetic if you believe that Gaimon is related to the current storyline. 17:53, May 16, 2013 (UTC) There was never a rule that stayed a nomination had to be about the current arc/story. That is just plain moronic. Anything on the wikia that is about One Piece itself can be featured. There are very few things on this wikia that cannot be featured such as the one shot characters (except Monsters). SeaTerror (talk) 18:04, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Let's feature Silk then. 18:06, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Actually fuck that rule, it's no fun. 10:36, May 17, 2013 (UTC)